Subject: Annual Report on Complaints 2008/2009

Subject: Annual Report on Complaints 2008/2009

Report to the Director of Children, Schools and Families

Author:Paul Davies, Complaints Officer

Lead Officer:Michael Francis, Head of Customer Focus

Executive Member:Jane Pitman / Richard Thake

1.)Purpose of the Report

To report on:

Working of the Complaints Procedures

Numbers and type of complaints received in the financial year April 2008 – March 2009

Steps taken to improve serviceswhich complaints reveal to be under-performing.

2.)Summary

The number of Social Care Complaints has slightly increased during 2008-09. Small reductions in the numbers of complaints about Independent Support Serviceand Foster Care were offset by a rise in complaints the mainstream social work teams in both the East and West of the county, and Disabled Children’s Teamsin both East and West, compared to 2007-08.

This growth in the number of social care complaints can be attributed to a number of factors, not least:

Under the 2006 complaint Regulations, failure to respond either at all or within timescale is a basis for escalating a complaint.

The growth of awareness of the right to complain and the resources available for support, e.g. advocacy, lawyers, politicians etc.

Education complaints have significantly decreased overall,when compared with 2007-08. The largest decreases involved complaints about Special Educational Needs (48 → 15) and Transport (23 → 11).

This decrease in the number of education complaints can be attributed to a number of factors, not least:

Increased adherence to the ComplaintsProcedure.

Significant improvements both in the speed and quality of responses to enquiries and minor concerns which has prevented many from developing into formal complaints.

Type of Complaint / Total number received (2008-09) / Total number received (2007-08)
Social Care / 260 / 232
Education / 64 / 106
School-Based* / 107 / 116

*These figures reflect the complaints that come to the attention of the CSF Complaints Team. Many complaints about schools may not come to the attention of the council.

Corporate Customer Care Standards and Statutory Complaints Procedures

There are two key frameworks within which customer care satisfaction and complaints work is undertaken.

1.) Corporate Customer Care Standards

Hertfordshire County Council published Version 1 of the Corporate Customer Care Standards in April 2007. These have been distributed to staff, supported by a promotional campaign and a good practice guide for staff has also been distributed.

2.) Statutory Complaints Procedures

All local authorities in England providing social work services are legally obliged to have in place effective complaints procedures that operate under the Children Act 1989, the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, and the Care Standards Act 2000. New complaints Regulations came into force in September 2006 insofar as children’s complaints are concerned. The procedure is comprised of three stages:

Stage 1 – The emphasis is on local resolution and response.

Stage 2 – Is an investigation by an Investigating Officer (together with an Independent Person, for Children Act complaints), neither of whom has responsibility for the service being complained about. The Investigating Officer and Independent Person are commissioned externally for Social Care complaint investigations. Education complaint investigations are usually commissioned internally.

Stage 3 – Is a review of the Stage 2process, by anIndependent Complaints Review Panel (for Children Act complaints) and by the CountySecretary (for education and other social care complaints).

The complainant has further recourse to the Local Government Ombudsman. An early referral can be made to the Ombudsman if the complainant and the Complaints Manager agree that a Stage 3 Review Panel is unlikely to provide the outcome that the complainant desires.

A.) A summary of this process and the timescales involved is included in Appendix 1 of this report.

B.) A detailed quarterly breakdown of stage 1, 2, 3 and Local Government Ombudsman complaints received during 2008-09 can be found in Appendix 5.

C.) A summary of complaints involving the Local Government Ombudsman received during 2008-09 can be found in Appendix 7.

D.) Finally, a summary of the total amount of financial remedies awarded in relation to complaints made in 2008-09 can be found in Appendix 8.

Section / Page(s)
Introduction / 1 – 3
Social Care Complaints (including Customer Care Managers’ contribution) / 4 – 10
Education Complaints / 11 - 14
Developments in 2008-09 / 15
Appendix 1 – The complaints procedure / 16
Appendix 2 – Summary of Stage 2 Social Care Complaint Investigations 2008-09 / 17 – 25
Appendix 3 – Summary of Stage 3 Social Care Complaint Panels 2008-09 / 26
Appendix 4 – Summary of Stage 2 Education Complaint Investigations 2008-09 / 27
Appendix 5 – Stage 1, 2, 3 and Local Government Ombudsman Complaints Quarterly Breakdown 2008-09 / 28 – 30
Appendix 6 – Complaints involving the use of an advocate or advocacy service 2008-09 / 31
Appendix 7 – Local Government Ombudsman Complaints 2008-09 / 32 - 33
Appendix 8 – Financial Remedies awarded 2008-09 / 34

Complaints

Social Care Complaints

66compliments were logged with the Customer Focus Team in 2008-09

Numbers and themes of complaints

Stage 1 – Social Care Complaints

Number of Complaints (2008-09) / Number of Complaints (2007-08)
West Area Teams / 128 / 105
East Area Teams / 107 / 96
Independent Support Service / 0 / 7
West Disabled Children’s Teams / 5 / 4
East Disabled Children’s Teams / 4 / 2
Residential Care / 1 / 1
Foster Care / 13 / 15
Adoption / 2 / 2
Total / 260 / 232
Compliments / 66 / 60

20 complaints were made directly on behalf of young people by an advocate or advocacy service during 2008-09. Please refer to Appendix 6 for further information.

Customer Care Managers’ Contributions

East Area (Sue Goff)

Main areas of complaint (2008-09)

Main themes identified from complaints (2008-09)

Steps taken to improve services

Communication

Response timescales

Summary

West Area- Customer Care Manager (Simon Levitt)

Main areas of complaint (2008-09)

Main themes identified from complaints (2008-09)

Steps taken to improve services

Communication

Response timescales

Summary

Education Complaints

28 compliments were logged with the Customer Focus Team in 2008-09

Number and themes of complaints

Stage 1 – Education Complaints

Number of Complaints
(2008-09) / Number of Complaints
(2007-08)
SEN / 15 / 48
Admissions / 28 / 29
Transport / 11 / 23
Home & Hospital Education (HHE) / 2 / 1
Education Welfare Officer (EWO) / 0 / 1
Integration / 7 / 2
Student Finance / 1 / 0
Collective Worship / 0 / 0
Curriculum / 0 / 2
Total / 64 / 106
Compliments / 28 / 18
School-Based Complaints / 107 / 116

Complaints Team

Complaints Team Performance

Despite an increase of 12% in Social Care complaints between 2007-08 & 2008-09 the numbers of complaints responded to within timescale shows an improvement, especially at Stage 1. Complaints Team’s introduction of reports to quarterly Social Care Quality Monitoring meetings and quarterly Practice Briefings has provided invaluable feedback to operational services on the learning from complaints, required to be implemented in the form of service improvements.

By means of facilitating resolution at Stage 1, the CCM’s have been thoroughly cost-effective, principally in preventingsignificant numbers of complaints escalating to Stage 2 of the complaints procedure.

A further development for 2009/10 will be to support operational services to embed service improvements indicated by complaints.

The Complaints Manager’s information to senior education managers that some children, especially those with special needs, were waiting for an unacceptable time for a school place, contributed to the drive to ensure that this problem was effectively addressed between 2007-08 & 2008-09.

Appendix 1

Children’s Complaints Regulations (2006)

THE PROCEDURE FOR CHILDREN ACT 1989 COMPLAINTS

Stage 1 – Local Resolution
When a complaint is received, pass to:
- Admin support for logging (locally and with central complaints team) and
- Team Manager (or equivalent) for response
Customer Care Managers provide support to the process of responding at this stage. CSF should consider mediation and conflict resolution at this stage and at all other stages and aim to resolve matters within 10 working days. The response timescale can be extended for a further 10 working days, if agreed with the complainant, up to a maximum 20 working days (otherwise complainant can proceed to Stage 2)

↓

If not resolved – or if there is agreement for investigation

↓

Stage 2 – Investigation
The local authority should provide an investigation that produces a report and an adjudication within 25 working days (or, if agreed with the complainant, within the extended period of 65 working days if investigation cannot be completed in that time)

↓

If not resolved

↓

Stage 3 – Review Panel
A panel of 3 independent people should meet to consider the complaint and produce recommendations

↓

If not resolved

↓

Referral to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
(Please note that an approach to the Local Government Ombudsman may be made directly by the complainant)

Appendix 2

Stage 2 Social Care Complaint Investigations – (i.e. Those upheld complaints escalated from Stage 1 to Stage 2 between 01/04/08 and 31/03/09)

Number / Complaints Upheld / Learning Points / Actions taken
1 /

CSF suggested to complainant that an extension could be built to her house (with funding provided) in order to help her look after her nephew. There then followed two years of unnecessary delays by Hertfordshire County Council in agreeing the building plans.

Process for agreeing and funding an extension is full of technicalities. The Investigating Officer is unsure that HCC staff connected with this process entirely understand it.
Clear evidence of delay in responding to communications by some council officers.

Complainant given a full, unreserved apology.
Funding released by HCC to allow the project to progress.
Guidance notes to be circulated to all of those granted a loft conversion/extension, outlining the steps to be taken and those involved in the process.

2 /

CSF failed to undertake an Initial Assessment within the recommended timescale following receipt of a referral from the child’s school
CSF made a referral to CAMHS in April 2008. Parents were advised they would hear from CAMHS within 6 weeks but never heard anything.
CSF stated in a letter to parents in May 2008 that a response would be provided within 10 working days but nothing was ever sent.
CSF arranged a meeting in June 2008 to reunite parents and child (following child running away from home). Parents were dissatisfied with the way this meeting was conducted.

Advice given to parents by CSF staff although not appreciated by parents, did reflect legal and good practice requirements.
Unacceptable delays in completion of the investigation.

Parents given a full, unreserved apology for all aspects of the complaint upheld.
CSF to explore Investigating Officer’s recommendation that parents should be offered a sum of money in relation to the unacceptable delays.
Complaints Team implemented new measures to ensure more thorough and regular progress checks are made on individual complaint investigations.

3 /

Siblings placed in unsuitable, inadequate foster care placements with two different families. Their health and educational needs suffered as a result.
Mishandling of mother’s death – no provision made to support grieving children.
Failure by social worker to provide one to one contact and to take complaints seriously.
Failure by Hertfordshire Social Services to keep siblings together as a family unit.
No preparation for independent living on leaving care.

This case is a historical one. An example of a complaint that is more than a year old (and out of statutory timescale) requiring it to be investigated.

Apology.
Meeting of siblings, Adjudicating Officer complaints Manager leading to

exploring possibilities for reuniting siblings with sister separated in childhood;
confirming HCC’s duties to CLA at the time;
Claim made against the Council.

4 /

Complainant received no response to their stage 1 complaint submitted in August 2007. They did not withdraw this complaint at any time.
Despite being on the Child Protection Register and CSF being aware of the young person’s history, the complainant was placed back into harm by CSF with no support or monitoring in place. This resulted in actual harm and caused educational disruption.
CSF did not seek to ascertain young person’s views on issues including accommodation, not being seen on her own her views not sought
During young person’s last days in care, the travel and transport arrangements made by CSF were inadequate. She was often left waiting to be collected and once had to borrow money to return to foster home.
Young person did not receive proper financial assistance or social work services.

Complaints made by the young person and their relative were not responded to.

Apology.
CSF to purchase a laptop computer for complainant child (to assist with education).

5 /

Some of complainants’ comments were taken out of context and reported in a different manner to the Locality Team Social Workers.
Interview badly managed.
Conduct of interviewing social workers fell below professional standard.
Locality Team obtained information from GP under false pretences.
Complainants were not given a copy of the social work report prior to the Initial Child Protection Conference.
Core Group Meeting did not follow procedure.
Complainants felt that throughout the Child Protection process, the child’s voice had not been heard by professionals until the report in August 2008.

Disciplinary action for CSF staff not warranted.
CSF staff to have regular review of their training needs.
Compensation deemed to be inappropriate and unjustified.

Apology given in relation to: 1.) A CSF Manager failing to inform complainants of her actions. 2.) The Section 47 enquiry was not led by a qualified social worker and 3.) The Core Group Meeting was not properly convened.

6 /

Social worker breached confidentiality and in doing so, passed on inaccurate and untrue information.
Initial response to complaint received from social worker was not appropriate and was contradictory.
Social workernot thorough.
Time taken to address complaints.

Unacceptable length of time taken by social services to complete assessment.

CSF should ensure files are kept up-to-date
details of all contacts are written up on appropriate files.
Apologies offered.

7 /

Management review was ambiguous in what it said about action following the outcome of Review.
Some incorrect information may be held on LA file.

Stage 2 Investigation suspended due to adoption panel. Case to LGO. Stage 2 report not completed.

£500 a time and trouble payment.
Complainant offered to view her own files and to suggest amendments in relation to them.

8 /

HCC failed to care for or protect complainant, 1990-99.
Was not offered counselling following sexual abuse.
Social Services allowed complainant’s relative to foster her despite abuse of her own child.
No action taken by social services over report that complainant’s relative was taking indecent photographs.

Services prior to complainant being looked after fell short of appropriate standards.

Apology.
Claim against the council.
Complainant, Senior Managers, Investigators and complainant met repeatedly to discuss concerns.

9 /

Complainant’s confidential information was discussed in the presence of foster carers’ son.
Social worker failed to protect complainant from the abuse by foster carers.
Standard of care from foster carers was inadequate.
Complainant was not offered any protection from bullying by foster carers social worker.
Family contact was not supported by the foster carers.

Historical service in foster care fell short of appropriate standards.
Practice expectations and statutory responsibilities have improved greatly in the last 20+ years.

Apology.
Complainant informed of the improvements in social care provision since 1980s.

10 /

Complainants made 2 complaints prior to 2008 about the mistreatment of their daughter and grand-daughter by her mother. They never received any feedback about the outcome of any investigation.
When child complained of soreness there was no proper investigation of its cause.
Social worker failed to support father when he had care of his daughter.
Social worker failed to arrange contact requested by court for father, in a timely manner.
Social worker breached confidentiality.
Complaint was not dealt with correctly, resulting in long delays.

Where Child Protection investigations involve children whose parents are separated, both parents must receive written feedback in relation to the investigation.

HSCB asked to issue a practice note on need to consult Paediatricians in child protection cases.
24 hour rota for Paediatricians recommended for CP concerns.
Staff reminded that all referrers should receive written responses to their concerns.
Apology.

11 /

Adoption hearing was delayed due to conflicting recommendations made by CSF social workers.
Complainant experienced poor and spasmodic social work practice from the Locality Team social workers.
Confidential information about the complainant was disclosed to the birth mother of the adopted child.
Stage 1 response received by complainant contained inaccuracies and did not satisfactorily address the issues outlined in the original letter of complaint of July 2008.

An inexperienced social worker was insufficiently and inconsistently advised.

Apology.
From September 2009, all newly qualified social workers join the Academy.

12 /

Poor communication by social worker.
Mismanagement of contact.
Mismanagement of ‘Wish You Well’ contact.
Aggressive and dismissive attitude and behaviour by social worker and his line manager.

Professional social workers and foster carers to discuss difficulties in a calm, professional manner.

Apology.
HCC has now set up an in-house contact service.

13 /

The allegation made by the complainant’s daughter that she had been hit by her foster carer was not taken seriously and not recorded.

CSF’s statutory roles to safeguard children. The complainant’s children are considered to be at risk and therefore, CSF cannot apologise for carrying out its role.

Apology.

14 /

Complainant received no response to certain points in her initial stage 1 complaint.
Complainant arrived at Apsley to attend a Looked After Child Review, waited for half an hour only to be told that the review had been cancelled because an Independent Reviewing Officer had not been assigned.
Complainant has had no contact from Social Services since August 2008. She has not been kept informed of progress.

Insufficient and incomplete recording on the part of the social worker.
Efforts should have been made to ensure that complainant was kept informed of her daughter’s Looked After status.

Apology.
CSF to invite complainant to discuss the stage 2 investigation with a senior manager.

15 /

Complainant believes financial support has been reduced since a Special Guardianship Order, compared to the amount she received as a Kinship Carer. The deficit is owed to the child in her care.

CSF should provide clearer information to foster carers considering applying for a Special Guardianship Order.

Complainant to receive a further £200 per year, in addition to the SGO allowance already agreed.

16 /

Stage 2 process instigated but not completed following complainants’ doubts as to what a Stage 2 Investigation could achieve.

Not applicable

Not applicable

17 /

No complaints upheld

All must work together for the wellbeing of the young person in question.

Head of Fostering Service and Head of Disabled Children’s Services to meet to ensure the two arms of CSF services ensure effective team work and communication.

18 /

Complainant unhappy with the length of time taken to access her files.
Complainant received only one of her files. Her Looked After Child files were missing. Complainant believes that as a result of her complaint, her files were found.
Complainant was offered no support for reading her files. The information contained within is unpalatable and confusing. Some paperwork has been ‘blacked out’ and files have been presented to her out of chronological order.
A report from the Emergency Duty Team stated that the complainant should be able to protect herself from the advances of her stepfather. The duty to protect her lay with CSF.

HCC could look into alternative methods of delivering confidential documents to ensure that only the intended recipient takes delivery.

Apology.
HCC to advise re Criminal Injuries Compensation claim.

19 /

CSF delayed telling the young person and their carer of the change in respite care arrangements.
Neither the carer, the young person, nor his parents were consulted about the change of arrangements.
The concerns raised by the young person and his carer about the changes and proposed placement were not passed on to those making the decision.
New placement was not properly monitored.

Usually, the foster carer is the person most trusted by the child looked after to explain changes. However, when foster carers seek support, this needs to be provided either by the supervising social worker or the child’s social worker.

Procedures to be reviewed to strengthen communication between all parties preparing for and planning respite care.
Parents of young person given an apology.

20 /

Complainant received no written communication verifying the equity panel’s agreement.
Complainant was not provided with any written information on what was to happen should parents or carers have issues regarding the way the placement was going.
No visits by social services to discuss issues which could have prevented breakdown of communications and withdrawal of service.

There is no formal stance adopted by CSF when a placement breaks down.
Shared Care procedures need to consider including Disruption meetings or Placement Ending meetings.

Financial sum awarded to complainant totalling £750.
Apology.
Complainant referred to the Local Government Ombudsman.

21 /

Confidential information was sent via ordinary post, leading to it being opened and read by another person.

Change of social worker recommended for complainant.
HCC to support complainant in securing educational placement.

County council to review its policies and procedures for sending out confidential information to service users.

22 /

Complainant’s foster care placement was terminated without a proper period of notice.
Letter of notice sent to complainant was inappropriate.
Pathway Plans were not completed with the complainant’s agreement or according to procedure.
Lack of prompt financial support given to complainant when she moved into independent living.
Poor quality of first stage one response.

When a placement is terminated, notice should be given to the department.
Financial recompense considered inappropriate by the Investigating Officer in this case.

Apology.
Complainant reassured of improvements in supervision of staff.

23 /

Child was forced into a unit that his parents knew was not suitable.
CSF did not listen to parents’ reasons or those of others as to why the placement was unsuitable.
Alternative provision, after an initial mention, was never mentioned again whilst alternative respite placements were considered.
There has been a lack of care in that no consideration was given to alternative respite placements despite it being known that parents could not send their child to the respite placement suggested.
After a request for respite help was made in 2005, no constructive suggestions were made.
Child’s, his school’s, his night carer’s -viewsnot listened to on a continuous basis.

All children should be seen when social care staff are assessing their needs.
The needs of any child should always be the paramount consideration.

Head of Disabled Children’s Service to chair a joint meeting with Operational Managers and colleagues in Learning and Development to ensure that staff receive appropriate training around the needs of disabled children and their families.
Major review of Short Break provision for disabled children in county instigated.
Apology.

Appendix 3